Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

August 3, 2023 | 讟状讝 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 79

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 注诇 专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讗讜讬专 讛讙讙 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讛讜讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讙讙 谞诪讞拽 讗讜 谞砖专祝 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转


MISHNA: If a woman was standing on top of the roof and her husband was standing below, and he threw a bill of divorce to her, once the bill of divorce reaches the airspace of the roof, she is divorced. If he was above on the roof and she was below, and he threw it to her, once it leaves the area of the roof, even if the wording was erased or the document was burned before it fell to the ground, she is divorced.


讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讟专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讙讙 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪注拽讛 注住拽讬谞谉


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the airspace of the roof unsecured? Since the bill of divorce can be blown away from the roof by the wind, it should be considered an unsecured courtyard, which does not acquire items. If so, why is she divorced once the bill of divorce reaches the airspace of the roof? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: We are dealing with a roof that has a parapet. Therefore, it is like a secured courtyard, since the bill of divorce cannot be blown away.


注讜诇讗 讘专 诪谞砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬诪讬 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 讻讙讙 讚诪讬


Ulla bar Menashya said in the name of Avimi that there is another answer: Here we are dealing with a case in which the bill of divorce is within three handbreadths of the roof, as anything within three handbreadths of the roof is considered to be like the roof itself, based on the principle that views two solid surfaces as connected if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths wide.


讛讜讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讟专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转


搂 It was taught in the mishna: If he was above and she was below, and he threw the bill of divorce to her, once it leaves the area of the roof, she is divorced. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the airspace of the courtyard not secured, since the bill of divorce can be blown out of the courtyard by the wind? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: We are discussing a case where the lower partitions in the courtyard extend beyond the upper partitions on the roof, so that the bill of divorce will certainly fall in the courtyard.


讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讜讻谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转


And so Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: We are discussing a case where the lower partitions extend beyond the upper partitions. And so Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: We are discussing a case where the lower partitions extend beyond the upper partitions.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讬 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讚诪讬讗


Rabbi Abba said to Ulla: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha that once the bill of divorce enters the woman鈥檚 domain, it is considered as though it was given to her, even though it was destroyed before it landed on the ground? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that with regard to the prohibition of transferring an item from one domain to another on Shabbat, an object in airspace is considered at rest? This means that any item in the airspace of a domain is considered to be placed within that domain.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讬谞讟专


Ulla said to him: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only with regard to Shabbat. They maintain that with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, the item must actually come to rest in the domain to which it was transferred; while it is in the air, it is not considered as though it has landed on the ground. But here, in the case of divorce, it is because the bill of divorce is secured that she is divorced, and in this case it is secured while within the airspace of the partitions.


讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讬 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讚诪讬讗


And so Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: We are discussing a case where the lower partitions in the courtyard extend beyond the upper partitions on the roof. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that an object in airspace is considered at rest?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讬谞讟专


Rabbi Asi said to him: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, since the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only with regard to Shabbat. But here, it is because the bill of divorce is secured that she is divorced, and in this case it is secured while within the airspace of the partitions.


谞诪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞诪讞拽 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讗讘诇 谞诪讞拽 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 诇诪讬谞讞 拽讗讬


搂 It was taught in the mishna that once the bill of divorce leaves the domain of the roof, even if the writing was erased before it reached her hand, she is divorced with it. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this halakha only when the writing was erased when it had already left the confines of the roof and was on its descent, entering her domain. But if the writing was erased while it was on its ascent, i.e., as it arched upward before falling down, then no, she is not divorced. What is the reason for this? Because initially, before it began its descent, the bill of divorce is not destined to land in her domain, since it could be blown elsewhere. Consequently, it cannot be considered as though it is already resting in her courtyard at that time.


谞砖专祝 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讚诐 讙讟 诇讚诇讬拽讛 讗讘诇 拽讚诪讛 讚诇讬拽讛 诇讙讟 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇砖专讬驻讛 拽讗讝讬诇


It was taught in the mishna that once the bill of divorce leaves the domain of the roof, even if the document was burned before it reached her hand, she is divorced with it. Here, as well, Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this halakha only when the throwing of the bill of divorce preceded the fire. But if the fire preceded the throwing of the bill of divorce, then the woman is not divorced. What is the reason for this? Because initially, when the bill of divorce was thrown, it was heading toward being burned, and therefore it is considered that he never gave her a bill of divorce.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专砖讜讬讜转 讞诇讜拽讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉


Rav 岣sda says: Domains are divided with regard to bills of divorce. If there are several areas within the same domain, e.g., a house and a courtyard, or a courtyard and a roof, they are not all considered a single domain with regard to bills of divorce. Rather, each one is considered to be a separate domain.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇住讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 注诇 专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讗讜讬专 讛讙讙 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转


Rami bar 岣ma said to Rava: From where does the Elder, i.e., Rav 岣sda, derive this halakha? Rava said to him: It is derived from the mishna that taught: If the woman was standing on the top of the roof and her husband threw a bill of divorce to her from below, once the bill of divorce reaches the airspace of the roof, she is divorced.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讜讬专 讛讙讙


Rava explains: With what are we dealing? If we say that we are dealing with a case of her roof and her courtyard, why do I require the bill of divorce to reach the airspace of the roof in order for her to be divorced? Even if the bill of divorce remained in the courtyard, she would be divorced, since it is her courtyard.


讗诇讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 讻讬 讛讙讬注 诇讗讜讬专 讛讙讙 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


Rather, we must be dealing with a case of his roof and his courtyard. But when the bill of divorce reaches the airspace of the roof, what of it? Why is she then divorced, if the bill of divorce has not left his domain?


讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讙讙 谞诪讞拽 讗讜 谞砖专祝 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诇讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讛


Rather, it is obvious that we are dealing with a case of her roof and his courtyard. Rava questions this conclusion: Say the latter clause of the mishna, which taught: If he was above on the roof and she was below, and he threw it to her, once it leaves the area of the roof, even if the wording was erased or the document was burned before it fell to the ground, she is divorced. And if we are dealing with a case of her roof and his courtyard, why is she divorced? Rather, it is necessary to say that we are dealing with a case of his roof and her courtyard.


专讬砖讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 住讬驻讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讛


Rava asks: Is it possible that the first clause in the mishna is dealing with a case of her roof and his courtyard, and the latter clause in the mishna is dealing with a case of his roof and her courtyard? How could the same mishna discuss two halakhot where each one is dealing with a different reality, without mentioning this distinction?


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讜砖诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讚讞讚 诪拽讜诐 诪讜砖诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 转专讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 诇讗 诪讜砖诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬


Rava explains Rav 岣sda鈥檚 inference: Rather, is it not so that the mishna is dealing with a case where both the roof and the courtyard belong to him, but he lent her a place in his domain wherein she could acquire her bill of divorce, and she is standing in that place? In the first clause he lent her the roof, and in the second clause he lent her the courtyard, Consequently, only once it reaches that domain is she divorced. The reason why she does not acquire the bill of divorce until it reaches the specific domain that he lent her is that people lend only one place; people do not lend two places. Rav 岣sda understood that one can infer from the mishna that the courtyard and roof remain as separate domains, and concludes that, with regard to bills of divorce, different areas in one domain are considered to be multiple domains.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 专讬砖讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 住讬驻讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讛


Rami bar 岣ma said to Rava: Are the cases comparable? Perhaps this case is as it is and that case is as it is, i.e., the first clause in the mishna is dealing with a case of her roof and his courtyard, and the latter clause is dealing with a case of his roof and her courtyard. In some instances, one mishna deals with two different cases. Therefore, the mishna is not an adequate proof for Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讬 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诪讬谞讟专


Rava says: There are three unique qualities with regard to bills of divorce, as compared to the halakhot of Shabbat. The first is that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: An object in airspace is considered at rest; and the Rabbis disagree with him. This matter about which they disagree applies only with regard to Shabbat. But here, in the case of divorce, it is because the bill of divorce is secured that she is divorced; and once the bill of divorce is within the airspace of the partitions, it is secured and the Rabbis agree that she is divorced.


讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讘专讗砖讜 讟专住拽诇 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讬 砖专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讟专


And the second matter is that which Rav 岣sda says concerning the halakhot of Shabbat: In the case of one who embedded a reed in the ground of a private domain, and on its top was a basket [teraskal], and he threw an object from the public domain and it rested on top of it, even if the reed was a hundred cubits high, he is liable because the private domain extends upward until the sky. Therefore, the object landed in a private domain. This matter applies only with regard to Shabbat, as with regard to Shabbat domains are defined based on their partitions and the way in which they are used, which differs from the way domains are defined in other halakhic areas. But here, in the case of divorce, it is because the bill of divorce is secured that she is divorced, and when it is on the reed it is not secured.


讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘讙讙 讝讛 讜讬拽诇讜讟 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 诪讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 砖讻砖诐 砖讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 讻讱 讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛


And the third matter relates to that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: On Shabbat a person should not stand on this roof and collect rainwater from the roof of another if there is no joining of courtyards. As just as the residences are separated below, so too, the residences are separated above. Each residence has a separate domain, and it is forbidden by rabbinic law to transfer an item from a private domain to another private domain if they are not joined. Similarly, despite the fact that the roofs are not totally separated from one another and nobody lives there, each roof is considered to be its own domain.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讙讟 诪砖讜诐 拽驻讬讚讗 讛讜讗 讜讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬


Rava explains: This matter applies only with regard to Shabbat. But with regard to a bill of divorce, if it fell onto another roof that is adjacent to the roof that he lent her for the purpose of acquiring the bill of divorce, she is divorced. The reason that a woman is usually not divorced when a bill of divorce falls into a different place, even though that place also belongs to her husband, is due to the fact that a husband is particular and does not want to lend her more than one place; but people are not particular to that extent, i.e., in this case the husband would not be particular about allowing her to temporarily use an adjacent rooftop that also belongs to him.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖转讬 讞爪专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 驻谞讬诪讬转 砖诇讛 讜讞讬爪讜谞讛 砖诇讜 讜诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转


Abaye says: If there are two courtyards that are configured such that this courtyard is within that courtyard, and the inner courtyard is hers and the outer courtyard is his, and the partitions of the outer courtyard extend higher than the partitions of the inner courtyard, and he threw a bill of divorce to her into her courtyard, once it reaches the airspace of the partitions of the outer courtyard, i.e., it reaches the area above the inner courtyard at a height lower than the height of the partitions of the outer courtyard, she is divorced.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讙讜驻讛 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 拽讗 诪讬谞讟专讛


What is the reason for this? The inner courtyard itself is secured by the partitions of the outer courtyard. Therefore, the outer partitions service the inner courtyard as well. If the bill of divorce is secured by being encompassed by the outer partitions, it can be viewed as belonging to the inner courtyard once it reaches its airspace.


诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘拽讜驻讜转 砖转讬 拽讜驻讜转 讝讜 讘转讜讱 讝讜 驻谞讬诪讬转 砖诇讛 讜讞讬爪讜谞讛 砖诇讜 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讬注 诇讗讜讬专 驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转


The Gemara comments: This is not so with regard to baskets. In a case where there were two baskets, this one within that one, resting in a domain that does not belong to either of them, and the inner basket is hers and the outer basket is his, and he threw a bill if divorce to her into her basket, even if the bill of divorce reached the airspace of the inner basket but was burned or taken before it landed therein, she is not divorced.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 谞讞


What is the reason for this? It is because the bill of divorce did not yet rest within the basket, and in this case, the walls of the outer basket do not service the inner basket.


讜讻讬 谞讞 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And when it rests within the basket, what of it? They are like the vessels of a buyer in the domain of the seller, since her basket is within his basket, which is his domain. She cannot acquire the bill of divorce, despite the fact that it is in her basket, since it is within his domain.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘拽讜驻讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬讬诐


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a basket that has no bottom, and consequently the inner basket is resting on the ground and not inside the outer basket. Therefore, once the bill of divorce lands inside the inner basket, she is indeed divorced.


诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讜讟专 讗讚诐 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讬砖谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讙讟 讬砖谉 讻诇 砖谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛 诪讗讞专 砖讻转讘讜 诇讛


MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A man may send, i.e., divorce, his wife with an outdated bill of divorce, and Beit Hillel prohibit him from doing so. And what is an outdated bill of divorce? Any case where he was secluded with her after he wrote it for her and before he gave it to her.


讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讙讬讟讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讛


GEMARA: The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? Beit Shammai hold that we do not say that the bill of divorce is not valid due to a rabbinic decree, lest they say that receipt of her bill of divorce precedes conception of her son. If he gives her the bill of divorce long after it was written, she may give birth to children from him in the interim. There is a concern that people will say that she was actually divorced on the date written on the bill of divorce before the children were born, and the children were conceived through licentious sexual intercourse.


讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讙讬讟讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讛


And Beit Hillel hold that we do say that this bill of divorce is not valid due to a rabbinic decree, lest they say that receipt of her bill of divorce precedes conception of her son. Consequently, if a woman was secluded with her husband following the writing of the bill of divorce, the bill of divorce is not valid.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 谞讬砖讗转 诇讗 转爪讗


Rabbi Abba says that Shmuel says: Even according to Beit Hillel, if the woman was married on the basis of an outdated bill of divorce given to her by her previous husband, who did not ask advice from the rabbis, she need not leave her second husband. In such a case, this decree is not severe enough to invalidate the bill of divorce.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 谞转讙专砖讛 转讬谞砖讗 诇讻转讞诇讛


And there are those who say that Rabbi Abba says that Shmuel says: If she was divorced with an outdated bill of divorce, this woman can marry even ab initio on the basis of this bill of divorce. There is no requirement for her to wait for her first husband to write her a new bill of divorce.


诪转谞讬壮 讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇砖讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 诪讚讬 诇砖讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 诇讘谞讬谉 讛讘讬转 诇讞讜专讘谉 讛讘讬转


MISHNA: If he wrote the date on the bill of divorce using a calendrical system that counts years in the name of a kingdom that is not legitimate, or he wrote the date in the name of the kingdom of Media, or in the name of the Greek Empire, after it ceased to exist, or he wrote the date counting to the building of the Temple, or counting to the destruction of the Temple, in all these case, the bill of divorce is not valid. In the time of the mishna, the local government was particular that documents be dated with the official government date. Therefore, the Sages instituted that this must be done in bills of divorce as well. If one deviates from this practice, the rabbinic dictates of bills of divorce have been violated, and the bill of divorce is invalid.


讛讬讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜讻转讘 讘诪注专讘 讘诪注专讘 讜讻转讘 讘诪讝专讞 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛


If he was in the east and he wrote the location in the bill of divorce as in the west, or if he was in the west and he wrote the location in the bill of divorce as in the east, the bill of divorce is not valid. If he divorced her with this bill of divorce and she remarried, she must leave both this first husband and that second husband, and she needs a bill of divorce from this husband and that husband.


讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转 诇讗 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讝讛


And she does not receive payment of her marriage contract, and not the profits from her properties that her husband consumed, and she does not have a claim to receive sustenance, and she does not have a claim to worn clothes that belonged to her, but which her husband used. She cannot demand these items, not of this husband and not of that husband.


讗诐 谞讟诇讛 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 转讞讝讬专 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讛 讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 讝讻讗讬谉 诇讗 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛


If she took any of these items from this husband or from that husband, she must return what was taken. And the child that was born from this husband or from that husband that was conceived after she married the second husband is a son born from an adulterous relationship [mamzer]. And neither this husband nor that husband, if they are priests, is permitted to become ritually impure by her when she dies, which a husband may ordinarily do for his wife. And neither this husband nor that husband have the rights to objects she finds, or to her earnings, or to the annulment of her vows.


讛讬转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞驻住诇转 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛


If she was an Israelite woman, then through these two marriages she becomes disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, due to the prohibition against a priest marrying a zona.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 79-85 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what constitutes a personal domain and how it affects giving a Get.聽 We will learn...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 79: Pitching to the Rooftops

A woman who stands on top of the roof and her husband throws the get to her - under what...

Gittin 79

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 79

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 注诇 专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讗讜讬专 讛讙讙 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讛讜讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讙讙 谞诪讞拽 讗讜 谞砖专祝 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转


MISHNA: If a woman was standing on top of the roof and her husband was standing below, and he threw a bill of divorce to her, once the bill of divorce reaches the airspace of the roof, she is divorced. If he was above on the roof and she was below, and he threw it to her, once it leaves the area of the roof, even if the wording was erased or the document was burned before it fell to the ground, she is divorced.


讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讟专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讙讙 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪注拽讛 注住拽讬谞谉


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the airspace of the roof unsecured? Since the bill of divorce can be blown away from the roof by the wind, it should be considered an unsecured courtyard, which does not acquire items. If so, why is she divorced once the bill of divorce reaches the airspace of the roof? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: We are dealing with a roof that has a parapet. Therefore, it is like a secured courtyard, since the bill of divorce cannot be blown away.


注讜诇讗 讘专 诪谞砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬诪讬 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 讻讙讙 讚诪讬


Ulla bar Menashya said in the name of Avimi that there is another answer: Here we are dealing with a case in which the bill of divorce is within three handbreadths of the roof, as anything within three handbreadths of the roof is considered to be like the roof itself, based on the principle that views two solid surfaces as connected if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths wide.


讛讜讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讟专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转


搂 It was taught in the mishna: If he was above and she was below, and he threw the bill of divorce to her, once it leaves the area of the roof, she is divorced. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the airspace of the courtyard not secured, since the bill of divorce can be blown out of the courtyard by the wind? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: We are discussing a case where the lower partitions in the courtyard extend beyond the upper partitions on the roof, so that the bill of divorce will certainly fall in the courtyard.


讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讜讻谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转


And so Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: We are discussing a case where the lower partitions extend beyond the upper partitions. And so Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: We are discussing a case where the lower partitions extend beyond the upper partitions.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讬 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讚诪讬讗


Rabbi Abba said to Ulla: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha that once the bill of divorce enters the woman鈥檚 domain, it is considered as though it was given to her, even though it was destroyed before it landed on the ground? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that with regard to the prohibition of transferring an item from one domain to another on Shabbat, an object in airspace is considered at rest? This means that any item in the airspace of a domain is considered to be placed within that domain.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讬谞讟专


Ulla said to him: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only with regard to Shabbat. They maintain that with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, the item must actually come to rest in the domain to which it was transferred; while it is in the air, it is not considered as though it has landed on the ground. But here, in the case of divorce, it is because the bill of divorce is secured that she is divorced, and in this case it is secured while within the airspace of the partitions.


讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讬 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讚诪讬讗


And so Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: We are discussing a case where the lower partitions in the courtyard extend beyond the upper partitions on the roof. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that an object in airspace is considered at rest?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讬谞讟专


Rabbi Asi said to him: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, since the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only with regard to Shabbat. But here, it is because the bill of divorce is secured that she is divorced, and in this case it is secured while within the airspace of the partitions.


谞诪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞诪讞拽 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讗讘诇 谞诪讞拽 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 诇诪讬谞讞 拽讗讬


搂 It was taught in the mishna that once the bill of divorce leaves the domain of the roof, even if the writing was erased before it reached her hand, she is divorced with it. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this halakha only when the writing was erased when it had already left the confines of the roof and was on its descent, entering her domain. But if the writing was erased while it was on its ascent, i.e., as it arched upward before falling down, then no, she is not divorced. What is the reason for this? Because initially, before it began its descent, the bill of divorce is not destined to land in her domain, since it could be blown elsewhere. Consequently, it cannot be considered as though it is already resting in her courtyard at that time.


谞砖专祝 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讚诐 讙讟 诇讚诇讬拽讛 讗讘诇 拽讚诪讛 讚诇讬拽讛 诇讙讟 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇砖专讬驻讛 拽讗讝讬诇


It was taught in the mishna that once the bill of divorce leaves the domain of the roof, even if the document was burned before it reached her hand, she is divorced with it. Here, as well, Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this halakha only when the throwing of the bill of divorce preceded the fire. But if the fire preceded the throwing of the bill of divorce, then the woman is not divorced. What is the reason for this? Because initially, when the bill of divorce was thrown, it was heading toward being burned, and therefore it is considered that he never gave her a bill of divorce.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专砖讜讬讜转 讞诇讜拽讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉


Rav 岣sda says: Domains are divided with regard to bills of divorce. If there are several areas within the same domain, e.g., a house and a courtyard, or a courtyard and a roof, they are not all considered a single domain with regard to bills of divorce. Rather, each one is considered to be a separate domain.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇住讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 注诇 专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讗讜讬专 讛讙讙 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转


Rami bar 岣ma said to Rava: From where does the Elder, i.e., Rav 岣sda, derive this halakha? Rava said to him: It is derived from the mishna that taught: If the woman was standing on the top of the roof and her husband threw a bill of divorce to her from below, once the bill of divorce reaches the airspace of the roof, she is divorced.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讜讬专 讛讙讙


Rava explains: With what are we dealing? If we say that we are dealing with a case of her roof and her courtyard, why do I require the bill of divorce to reach the airspace of the roof in order for her to be divorced? Even if the bill of divorce remained in the courtyard, she would be divorced, since it is her courtyard.


讗诇讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 讻讬 讛讙讬注 诇讗讜讬专 讛讙讙 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


Rather, we must be dealing with a case of his roof and his courtyard. But when the bill of divorce reaches the airspace of the roof, what of it? Why is she then divorced, if the bill of divorce has not left his domain?


讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讙讙 谞诪讞拽 讗讜 谞砖专祝 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诇讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讛


Rather, it is obvious that we are dealing with a case of her roof and his courtyard. Rava questions this conclusion: Say the latter clause of the mishna, which taught: If he was above on the roof and she was below, and he threw it to her, once it leaves the area of the roof, even if the wording was erased or the document was burned before it fell to the ground, she is divorced. And if we are dealing with a case of her roof and his courtyard, why is she divorced? Rather, it is necessary to say that we are dealing with a case of his roof and her courtyard.


专讬砖讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 住讬驻讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讛


Rava asks: Is it possible that the first clause in the mishna is dealing with a case of her roof and his courtyard, and the latter clause in the mishna is dealing with a case of his roof and her courtyard? How could the same mishna discuss two halakhot where each one is dealing with a different reality, without mentioning this distinction?


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讜砖诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讚讞讚 诪拽讜诐 诪讜砖诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 转专讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 诇讗 诪讜砖诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬


Rava explains Rav 岣sda鈥檚 inference: Rather, is it not so that the mishna is dealing with a case where both the roof and the courtyard belong to him, but he lent her a place in his domain wherein she could acquire her bill of divorce, and she is standing in that place? In the first clause he lent her the roof, and in the second clause he lent her the courtyard, Consequently, only once it reaches that domain is she divorced. The reason why she does not acquire the bill of divorce until it reaches the specific domain that he lent her is that people lend only one place; people do not lend two places. Rav 岣sda understood that one can infer from the mishna that the courtyard and roof remain as separate domains, and concludes that, with regard to bills of divorce, different areas in one domain are considered to be multiple domains.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 专讬砖讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 住讬驻讗 讘讙讙 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞爪专 讚讬讚讛


Rami bar 岣ma said to Rava: Are the cases comparable? Perhaps this case is as it is and that case is as it is, i.e., the first clause in the mishna is dealing with a case of her roof and his courtyard, and the latter clause is dealing with a case of his roof and her courtyard. In some instances, one mishna deals with two different cases. Therefore, the mishna is not an adequate proof for Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讬 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诪讬谞讟专


Rava says: There are three unique qualities with regard to bills of divorce, as compared to the halakhot of Shabbat. The first is that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: An object in airspace is considered at rest; and the Rabbis disagree with him. This matter about which they disagree applies only with regard to Shabbat. But here, in the case of divorce, it is because the bill of divorce is secured that she is divorced; and once the bill of divorce is within the airspace of the partitions, it is secured and the Rabbis agree that she is divorced.


讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讘专讗砖讜 讟专住拽诇 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讬 砖专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞讟讜专讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讟专


And the second matter is that which Rav 岣sda says concerning the halakhot of Shabbat: In the case of one who embedded a reed in the ground of a private domain, and on its top was a basket [teraskal], and he threw an object from the public domain and it rested on top of it, even if the reed was a hundred cubits high, he is liable because the private domain extends upward until the sky. Therefore, the object landed in a private domain. This matter applies only with regard to Shabbat, as with regard to Shabbat domains are defined based on their partitions and the way in which they are used, which differs from the way domains are defined in other halakhic areas. But here, in the case of divorce, it is because the bill of divorce is secured that she is divorced, and when it is on the reed it is not secured.


讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘讙讙 讝讛 讜讬拽诇讜讟 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 诪讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 砖讻砖诐 砖讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 讻讱 讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛


And the third matter relates to that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: On Shabbat a person should not stand on this roof and collect rainwater from the roof of another if there is no joining of courtyards. As just as the residences are separated below, so too, the residences are separated above. Each residence has a separate domain, and it is forbidden by rabbinic law to transfer an item from a private domain to another private domain if they are not joined. Similarly, despite the fact that the roofs are not totally separated from one another and nobody lives there, each roof is considered to be its own domain.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讙讟 诪砖讜诐 拽驻讬讚讗 讛讜讗 讜讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬


Rava explains: This matter applies only with regard to Shabbat. But with regard to a bill of divorce, if it fell onto another roof that is adjacent to the roof that he lent her for the purpose of acquiring the bill of divorce, she is divorced. The reason that a woman is usually not divorced when a bill of divorce falls into a different place, even though that place also belongs to her husband, is due to the fact that a husband is particular and does not want to lend her more than one place; but people are not particular to that extent, i.e., in this case the husband would not be particular about allowing her to temporarily use an adjacent rooftop that also belongs to him.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖转讬 讞爪专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 驻谞讬诪讬转 砖诇讛 讜讞讬爪讜谞讛 砖诇讜 讜诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 注讜讚驻讜转 注诇 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转


Abaye says: If there are two courtyards that are configured such that this courtyard is within that courtyard, and the inner courtyard is hers and the outer courtyard is his, and the partitions of the outer courtyard extend higher than the partitions of the inner courtyard, and he threw a bill of divorce to her into her courtyard, once it reaches the airspace of the partitions of the outer courtyard, i.e., it reaches the area above the inner courtyard at a height lower than the height of the partitions of the outer courtyard, she is divorced.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻谞讬诪讬转 讙讜驻讛 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 拽讗 诪讬谞讟专讛


What is the reason for this? The inner courtyard itself is secured by the partitions of the outer courtyard. Therefore, the outer partitions service the inner courtyard as well. If the bill of divorce is secured by being encompassed by the outer partitions, it can be viewed as belonging to the inner courtyard once it reaches its airspace.


诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘拽讜驻讜转 砖转讬 拽讜驻讜转 讝讜 讘转讜讱 讝讜 驻谞讬诪讬转 砖诇讛 讜讞讬爪讜谞讛 砖诇讜 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讬注 诇讗讜讬专 驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转


The Gemara comments: This is not so with regard to baskets. In a case where there were two baskets, this one within that one, resting in a domain that does not belong to either of them, and the inner basket is hers and the outer basket is his, and he threw a bill if divorce to her into her basket, even if the bill of divorce reached the airspace of the inner basket but was burned or taken before it landed therein, she is not divorced.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 谞讞


What is the reason for this? It is because the bill of divorce did not yet rest within the basket, and in this case, the walls of the outer basket do not service the inner basket.


讜讻讬 谞讞 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And when it rests within the basket, what of it? They are like the vessels of a buyer in the domain of the seller, since her basket is within his basket, which is his domain. She cannot acquire the bill of divorce, despite the fact that it is in her basket, since it is within his domain.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘拽讜驻讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讜诇讬讬诐


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a basket that has no bottom, and consequently the inner basket is resting on the ground and not inside the outer basket. Therefore, once the bill of divorce lands inside the inner basket, she is indeed divorced.


诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讜讟专 讗讚诐 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讬砖谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讙讟 讬砖谉 讻诇 砖谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛 诪讗讞专 砖讻转讘讜 诇讛


MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A man may send, i.e., divorce, his wife with an outdated bill of divorce, and Beit Hillel prohibit him from doing so. And what is an outdated bill of divorce? Any case where he was secluded with her after he wrote it for her and before he gave it to her.


讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讙讬讟讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讛


GEMARA: The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? Beit Shammai hold that we do not say that the bill of divorce is not valid due to a rabbinic decree, lest they say that receipt of her bill of divorce precedes conception of her son. If he gives her the bill of divorce long after it was written, she may give birth to children from him in the interim. There is a concern that people will say that she was actually divorced on the date written on the bill of divorce before the children were born, and the children were conceived through licentious sexual intercourse.


讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讙讬讟讛 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讛


And Beit Hillel hold that we do say that this bill of divorce is not valid due to a rabbinic decree, lest they say that receipt of her bill of divorce precedes conception of her son. Consequently, if a woman was secluded with her husband following the writing of the bill of divorce, the bill of divorce is not valid.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 谞讬砖讗转 诇讗 转爪讗


Rabbi Abba says that Shmuel says: Even according to Beit Hillel, if the woman was married on the basis of an outdated bill of divorce given to her by her previous husband, who did not ask advice from the rabbis, she need not leave her second husband. In such a case, this decree is not severe enough to invalidate the bill of divorce.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 谞转讙专砖讛 转讬谞砖讗 诇讻转讞诇讛


And there are those who say that Rabbi Abba says that Shmuel says: If she was divorced with an outdated bill of divorce, this woman can marry even ab initio on the basis of this bill of divorce. There is no requirement for her to wait for her first husband to write her a new bill of divorce.


诪转谞讬壮 讻转讘 诇砖讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诇砖讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 诪讚讬 诇砖讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 诇讘谞讬谉 讛讘讬转 诇讞讜专讘谉 讛讘讬转


MISHNA: If he wrote the date on the bill of divorce using a calendrical system that counts years in the name of a kingdom that is not legitimate, or he wrote the date in the name of the kingdom of Media, or in the name of the Greek Empire, after it ceased to exist, or he wrote the date counting to the building of the Temple, or counting to the destruction of the Temple, in all these case, the bill of divorce is not valid. In the time of the mishna, the local government was particular that documents be dated with the official government date. Therefore, the Sages instituted that this must be done in bills of divorce as well. If one deviates from this practice, the rabbinic dictates of bills of divorce have been violated, and the bill of divorce is invalid.


讛讬讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜讻转讘 讘诪注专讘 讘诪注专讘 讜讻转讘 讘诪讝专讞 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜爪专讬讻讛 讙讟 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛


If he was in the east and he wrote the location in the bill of divorce as in the west, or if he was in the west and he wrote the location in the bill of divorce as in the east, the bill of divorce is not valid. If he divorced her with this bill of divorce and she remarried, she must leave both this first husband and that second husband, and she needs a bill of divorce from this husband and that husband.


讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讜诇讗 驻讬专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘诇讗讜转 诇讗 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讝讛


And she does not receive payment of her marriage contract, and not the profits from her properties that her husband consumed, and she does not have a claim to receive sustenance, and she does not have a claim to worn clothes that belonged to her, but which her husband used. She cannot demand these items, not of this husband and not of that husband.


讗诐 谞讟诇讛 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 转讞讝讬专 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讛 讜诇讗 讝讛 讜讝讛 讝讻讗讬谉 诇讗 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛


If she took any of these items from this husband or from that husband, she must return what was taken. And the child that was born from this husband or from that husband that was conceived after she married the second husband is a son born from an adulterous relationship [mamzer]. And neither this husband nor that husband, if they are priests, is permitted to become ritually impure by her when she dies, which a husband may ordinarily do for his wife. And neither this husband nor that husband have the rights to objects she finds, or to her earnings, or to the annulment of her vows.


讛讬转讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞驻住诇转 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛


If she was an Israelite woman, then through these two marriages she becomes disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, due to the prohibition against a priest marrying a zona.


Scroll To Top